Right. And how, in the real world, can anything happen without feedbacks?

Look, the only guy who imagines it could be possible to actually double the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere instantaneously with nothing else happening is that string theorist. And if he could come up with a way to cut the number of CO2 molecules by half, by maybe pulling in half those little loops of string, he’d solve the problem.

Nobody in reality imagines it’s possible to double the amount of CO2 with nothing else happening.

Jon:
>*Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously…*
Sim:
>” your basic logic is flawed, there are millions of AGW “proponents” who are not flying and who have made low carbon choices.”

Jon:
>*Buyt thoise [sic] are not the vocal in the press proponents and the decision makers are they. Another straw man, you are good at that.*

Ajax:
> Jon wants a little closed loop where anyone who goes to Copenhagen is not to be listened to, and anyone who doesn’t go to copenhagen is a no-body that he doesn’t count.

Jon:

>*I NEVER said that those who went to Copenhagen should not be listened too. I asked a simple question and the attack dogs are set loose.*

Shall we say Jon is trying to be very slippery? Or Jon, your pants are on fire!

BTW way Jon after your inital claim:

>*You brought opinions not evidence*.

I’m glad you now concede that I did present evidence to back my claims of conspiracy. The evidence I produce is strong enough to warrent broad campaigns for lobby reform, campaign reform, media overship reform etc. I think it should also warrent a “Church Commission” styled congressional investigation into the practice of fossil funded front groups and their campgagins to delay a carbon price.

Finally, since you can’t tell me who is flying private jets to copendhagen, I’m still waiting for your source of the claim of what private jets are being used for Copenhagen? Surely its a tiny minority and you’re pushing it in the face of the overwhelming majority would don’t use it.

>*Again I note no response to the 1974[5] Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board*

What do you think it the reports implications are Wallace?

That sulphates aerosols have a cooling foring and CO2 have a warming forcing? Or that we’ve gathered a lot more evidence since 1974? Or that we’ve cleaned up our sulphate aerosols more than we have our CO2?

“Again I note no response to the 1974[5] Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board”

It needs no response. It says aerosols can cause cooling, that greenhouse gases can cause warming, that they are not sure which will dominate in the future, and more work was needed. And guess what – the last 30+ years have been spent doing that work.

You really should just read the paper by Peterson, Connolly and Fleck in BAMS. Nobody with any intellectual honesty should be repeating the myth that you are peddling.

Hey Gaz #98… While yer on the subject of your alarmist chum Flannery I hear he’s lent his name to a scheme by the world’s most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists. Flannery yesterday defended his new role as an “environmental consultant” to Branson’s Virgin Galactic venture, which aims to sell space trips to civilians. Great if you can get the work!

I know, since 90% confidence is far too low to justify action, let’s wait until we have 100% confidence. Then all we have to do is travel back in time to a point when we could actually do something about it. Problem solved.

The survey was conducted in 25 countries. In most of South America, for example, over 80% of the respondents argued that climate change was a very serious problem. The pattern was repeated over most of the countries in the survey.

Game, set and match. In spite of their anti-scienctific tactics, the denialists are losing, that is clear. And as the data continues to come in, what little support they retain will literally melt away (no pun intended).

As for WW, if you want comic relief, read his web site. I did that just yesterday and had to log off due to the comic-level book science it parades. Having to cite an old article in Time Magazine in 1974 to suggest that there was a general concern over global cooling reveals how much he has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for information supporting his wafer-thin hypothesis. Two points here: first, as was pointed out later, a total of 7 peer-reviewed articles during the decade purported to support the argument of future cooling. Even in the 1970s, before the current dramatic rise in temperatures occurred, more studies were published in the empirical literature arguing that the human combustion of fossil fuels might inevitably lead to future warming. Second, scientists are not bound to remain stuck to their beliefs as more data accumulate. Good scientists are always willing to change their opinions if new data suggest that they are wrong. For the very few outliers in the 1970s, this was indeed the case. They argued that greenhouse gases that stimulate warming were more than compensating for aerosols which might induce cooling.

This is but a single example of the volumes of corruption and dishonesty uncovered by Watts and his team. Why are you so ignorant that you elect to ignore the crap alarmist manipulation of temperature data?
The future of science is at stake and all you can do is close your eyes.

Ah the ole “I can read emotion from text” bit. I ask a simple question and look at the reaction. Again if the poeple who are meeting to discuss this imminent threat to our existence exercise ZERO restraint in their carbon emissions how can they expect anyone elso to do the same? Let me try. in Lumonous Beauty’s typical bitch-like way she arrogantly projects emotions onto another poster that make her klingon mother proud. You are right that is fun!

Typical of sites like this the responses have nothing to do with my question, rather attacks are made, emotions projected, I am labeled things I am not, I have attributions of things I never said.

Hank, 1.2C doubling of CO2 is the math and physics w/o feedbacks. I NEVER said there was NOT feedbacks! Most feedbacks are currently said to be warm. But there is still more research that needs to be done to better determine if the overall feedbacks are positive. Stop twisting what I say so you can pull one of your stock arguements of a can and try to make yourself look oh so smart.

You all still do not get it. You could have a 100% confidence in 5C increase in 20 years, but if you do not deal with your utter arrogance, and hyopcrisy in actions you are not going to convince a single skeptic and they have the same number of votes as you, one each.

Maybe I should type slowly so the attack dogs can understand. I agree that Global Warming is occuring, I agree that CO2 is part of that increase, I believe that man’s contribution is part of it. I do not believe the projections of 2C a century or above will result. Model are not enough to convince me.

I do not know a single pilot who flies private jets. I also refuse to play your game of “where did you read it” so if I supply a source that you can attack instead of addressing the point, childish. Try Bing or Google “Private jet copenhagen” and select a source you trust.

Jon, do you believe in evolution?
Do you trust the paleo record?
Do you understand that every past natural warming (see Milankovich) has showed positive feedback as CO2 increased?

If you start a little paper fire and throw gasoline on it, how is this different from starting a little gasoline fire and throwing more gasoline on it? Is there any way the latter method can produce cold rather than more heat?

If you don’t believe in evolution, then you can’t believe in the paleo record. Is there any other reason not to read the paleo record for what it shows, in many different ways?

C’mon, Jon. You’re just chanting “can’t believe” with this stuff:

> I NEVER said there was NOT feedbacks! Most
> feedbacks are currently said to be warm. But
> there is still more research that needs to be
> done to better determine if the overall
> feedbacks are positive.

Jon! Good questions, to which there are good answers. I’m glad you’re thinking.

You’ve missed one fact: CO2 changes after warming (a feedback) in the paleo record, but an increase in CO2 is a forcing that leads to more warming. Yes, there are examples in the paleo record like the Deccan Traps flood basalt and the PETM event where a pulse of CO2 shows up and warming follows.

The physics is clear; increasing CO2 slows down the rate at which the planet gets rid of heat.

If you light a small paper fire (natural warming) and throw gasoline in it, it gets warmer. If you light a small gasoline fire (fossil fuel burning) and throw gasoline on it, it gets warmer. The fossil carbon, gets oxidized naturally as a feedback; when it’s burned the result is a forcing

Temperatures come back down naturally — slowly — when CO2 is removed over time from the atmosphere (“biogeochemical cycling”).

For anyone coming late to the biogeochemical cycling papers, remember to always check for subsequent citations and corrections. To have the complete record you need to do this each time you look up a paper.

Corrections
In the News & Views article “Global change: Plankton cooled a greenhouse” by Birger Schmitz (Nature 407, 143–144; 2000), the period of ‘superwarm’ conditions at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary should have been cited as lasting about 60,000 (not 150,000) years. Proof corrections made to the paper concerned (by S. Bains et al. 407, 171–174; 2000) were not passed on to the News & Views author.
NATURE|VOL 407|28 SEPTEMBER 2000 at 467

Schmitz starts off with a paragraph worth quoting:

“Scientists who can perform laboratory experiments are lucky — a megalomaniac climatologist can only dream of putting an Earth-like planet in a giant test tube, pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into its atmosphere, and registering the effects on life and climate. Fortunately, there are other approaches. At the Palaeocene/Eocene (P/E) boundary 55 million years ago, nature appears to have done the greenhouse experiment for us. Bains et al.1 (page 171 of this issue) now report that they have identified a rather unexpected response of the oceanic biosphere to dramatically high concentrations of atmospheric CO2, and temperatures, at this boundary — one that can account for a subsequent reduction in atmospheric CO2 and cooling.”

Already understand how CO2 can change both as forcing and a feedback that leads to more change. Did I say otherwise? Did you file this straw man arguement under D for Denier or S for Skeptic.. lol You certainly are a piece of work…

So, one cannot ask a question that they may already have the answer? That was directed at Hank who also assumed I must be a skeptic/denier who is trotting out “but but in the past warming always preceeded CO2 increase”. Wrong please find above where I CLEARLY stated my positions on GW, CO2 etc.

Remember Dave you cannot ask questions of other posters that you already know the answer, even if you just want to hear and listen to someone else answer. You do want to live by your own standards, correct?

From the above search, this is one of many clear descriptions the best example we have of CO2 increasing first, followed by warming, which caused as a feedback release of more CO2, followed by fast warming. That’s “fast” in geologic time terms. Humans do it much faster.

(No, I’m not assuming Jon wants to learn; this is recreational typing, perhaps for the next kid along who is reading this stuff for the first time and will learn how to do his own research. If Jon takes the time to read, and think, he won’t be back posting old talking points right away. Time will tell.)

“… Earth experienced a very gradual, long-term warming, likely due to volcanic activity. But then, at approximately 55 million years ago, chemical indicators in fossils and sediments suggest that a much more rapid warming occurred. This warming provided mammals with an opportunity to take over the world. The diversity and range of the mammal population exploded, with new species appearing in the geologic record and ranging all across the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time, however, deep-dwelling ocean fauna suffered a rapid extinction.

Geologic temperature proxies suggest that this rapid warming at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary occurred over a period of 10,000 to 20,000 years in association with a large change in the global carbon cycle. Surface temperatures increased by as much as 5 degrees Celsius in the tropics, and 10 degrees Celsius in high latitudes, then gradually returned to warm background levels over the next 100,000 years. At no other time during the last 65 million years do we have evidence for such a rapid change in temperature.”

——

Note the rate of change; we’re increasing CO2 maybe 100x faster than it increased during that rapid warming event.

Hank The straw man king. I CLEARLY stated my “beliefs” on GW, CO2 and man earlier in thread. Your choice to argue against a position I never took, is common and yet all so boring.. You have yet to post anything I have not read.

So, Jon. What fantasy negative feedback do you believe will counteract the known positive feedbacks, e.g., water vapor, snow and ice albedo, etc, of which we have high confidence and empirical evidence?

This is but a single example of the volumes of corruption and dishonesty uncovered by Watts and his team.”

Actually, it is but one of many incompetent analyses by posters at Watts. You’re right about the large volume – of crap at WTF! For example, the idiot poster drew a trend line of -0.7 degrees C through data that clearly show a quantum jump downwards because the station was moved.

Janet @161 Try holding your arms over your head to catch the points people are making.

The goal to change the level of emissions of carbon will take government, correct?

Governments are made up of politicians, correct?

Politicians derive their power from people, correct (USA context as that applies to me and myy point)?

Politicians for the most part follow polls, correct?

People (voters) typically do not vote for politicains that do not agree with them.

98% of the population makes up their mind about science issues without any knowledge of the science, hence they judge but what is in the news and what advocates are themselves doing.

If the advocates of AGW continue to not practice in their actions how dire this is (their belief) they are not going to convince skeptical people who will NEVER read Spence Weart. They will also dismiss it as BS. Thus they will not support politicians who also want to pass CO2 reducing legislation that will cost them in the NEAR term.

That was my point, you all avoided it and still continue to put me in some preconceived box of a denier to bring out all your well worn arguements.

See Janet your a-f actually misses the point I was making. Since none of were curious for further explanation from me as to what I orignally meant this is how we got to where we are now. Like I said I can only imagine if I WAS a denier…

Jon says:
“The people who believe in AGW the most are currently meeting in Copenhagen.”

That’s just not true. Most of the people meeting in Copenhagen are there to argue why they and their countries shouldn’t have to do anything even if AGW exists. As such the fact that they use private jets or even CFC propelled rockets to get there is beside the point.

By the way, if your prime interest is learning some introductory climate science, then you should spend time reading through the realclimate index and start here pages. Tim Lambert’s blog is mainly comments about attempts to distort and misinform people about climate science, e.g. Plimer’s book.

“To skeptics of climate change, many of whom will attend the conference, Copenhagen is the last defense of another kind — against the growing global momentum to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, an undertaking they think could cripple the international economy.”

So if a skeptic shows up in Copenhagen in a private jet is there some sort of hypocrisy there? If a private jet shows up in Copenhagen don’t we have to know who’s on it before we can charge hypocrisy?

Chris Please take the time to learn what my positions are before labeling me and making ignorant statements about my reading habits.

Why would I want to learn something I already know, introductory climate science. Since I am obviously already packaged into one of your boxes so you can whip out one of your canned responses, shall I bother to enlighten you? Sure why not. I agree the earth is warming. I agree some of it is due to an increase in CO2 concentration. I agree man is reponsible for that CO2 increase. So all your labels and assumptions have already been attempted several times by others on this particular post. It is interesting how so many of you try the same tactic, was someone on here talking about conspiracies earlier?

@PS #174 Sure if you think the average person is going to care to inquire. I don’t. The average person will hear that a climate conference is happening in Copenhagen. They will hear that AGW proponents are saying this is our chance its dire. The average person will hear about private jets and limos (I find it hard to believe only skeptics are using the private jets and limos) and figure “well cannot be that important”. Maybe the organizers should think a little more about people’s reactions. I think you would agree since the “science is settled”.

> 160 posts and my original question has not been answered, addressed, or even considered

Lest we forget your original question:

> Yet, they have to drive Limos in from Germany and use several airports to support all the private jets for the attendees of this conference. If they are not interested in reducing their carbon-footprint and these are the “smartest” people who “get it” then why should we believe them? If it is that important, that dire, would these people be burning carbon like that of many small countries combined?

Despite the fact that this is phrased in a loaded manner, and presumes its conclusions without providing evidence (either in this message or subsequently in the thread), Janet @ 62

> Will a teleconference enable the high-level interaction required to make this level of multi-lateral agreement? Unfortunately not. Humans respond better in person. Unfortunately our top leaders will burn fuel maximise their interaction and human contact.

> Our infrastructure and options as currently offered are based on perverse pricing. Put a price on carbon, people respond to price. What the market respond (if it is allowed and not monopolized).

> You’ll even have a chance of changing the footprint of the bullet proofed and most well guarded government officials.

Janet @ 68

> Private jets? Whose?

Jon – even if you disagree with it – please explain in detail how Janet’s response neither addresses nor considers your original question. She lays out that:

a) Face-to-face meeting is an important requirement for optimal negotiations for subjects such as this

b) Our entire infrastructure is built on skewed carbon pricing, and so arranging such a face to face meeting will inevitably involve some CO2 emissions

c) Asks for you to support your claim as to the excessive nature of the emissions, which is necessary for your question to have any merit whatsoever

Of course, your immediate reply to an initially reasonable response was “lol”.

Bernard J,I will have a go at your questions.Just so you wont be disappointed.
Increase in CO2??
Yes we humans are probably responsible for a majority of it.
Temperature sensitive to CO2??
There is plenty of evidence that global temperature is not particularly sensitive to CO2.
a]The ice core records from vostok show that temperature falls while CO2 is stll rising.
b]Paleo climate studies show that on geological timescales the earth had very low temps with high CO2[and vice versa].
c]From 1940 to 1975,during the period of the greatest production of CO2,temperatures did not rise in response,they fell for 4 decades.
d]CO2 has risen 4% in the last 9 years and temperatures have remained flat.
From Scott Mandia,
1]The arctic is warming just like it did in the 30’s.
2]Sea ice extent is increasing in antarctica for the period for which we have satellite data.Sea ice in the arctic over the same period had a slow decline until 2007 but is now[2008,2009] increasing again.
4]Well in the arctic it probably has not thinned in the last 2 years.The data on volume is not over a long enough period.[If yes, then I stand corrected].
5]The stratosphere is cooling,the cause is not known for certain.If it was GHG’s we would also see a troposphereic hotspot which we dont observe.
6]Plant /Animal species are shifting their ranges.
7]Glacier mass lost/retreat-I am not sure if the rate is increasing;I have seen different studies claiming different things.Mass loss/retreat is however, ongoing.
8]Sea levels are rising and the long term rate is the same.
Night time minimum temps are rising and it is thought to be due to UHI and/or land use changes.
Regards Warren.

Well, at least you had a go, which is more than anyone else to whom I’ve put the questions has managed, although cohenite apparently is working on something at Marohasy’s… I’ve avoided that cesspit for weeks so I have no idea if he actually produced anything of substance: if he has, he is welcome to reproduce it here, as I have requested on several occasions.

Anyway, the trouble is that I am disappointed with your answers. Where you disagree with empirically observed phenomena that support AGW, not a single one of your responses includes a succinct and referenced description of your evidence.

All I asked for was your best evidence. Your reply was akin to asking a Creationist to refute evolution, and getting “because the Bible says so” in response. What I am interested in is the best science that you believe supports your case.